FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Minimum Income Standard (MIS)
Minimum Income Standard (MIS)
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
MIS seems to be the new buzz word on the block as the govt gear up to introducing the unversal benefit in Jan 2013. What is the MIS?
It is the level of income a single person, or a family, or a pensioner needs to have a "socially acceptable" standard of living.
For couples it's been worked out at £38,000 per year, for singles it's £18k, for pensioners it's £12k each and for single parent families it's £23k.
So, to my mind, it's seems a no brainer that you take a person's social grouping:
Couple
Single
Pensioner
Lone Parent
Factor in what they earn, and if it falls short of the MIS they get 'topped up' and if they are over the MIS they get no benefits at all. This stops the rich coining in yet even more money, and prevents the poor falling further into the poverty trap and helps them get off benefits and look for work.
...and absolutely, the richest pensioners should have their benefits cut as they clearly don't need the token amount of money it provides. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Hmmm why would a pensioner and single persons be so different , they would have the same bills surely."
I think it's deemed that a mortgage would be paid off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I assume there are some T&C's attached to the allowance ?
It's not just a given ?
There has to be timeframes etc involved
Otherwise it seems that a single parent could just stay at home 'parenting' and take £23,000 in benefits ?
And likewise a couple on benefits could sit at home 'job hunting' and enjoy £38,000 a year.
Where do I sign up ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Hmmm why would a pensioner and single persons be so different , they would have the same bills surely.
I think it's deemed that a mortgage would be paid off."
Not single person's though ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"They may not have a morgage and they pay rent."
Then they'll get £1,000 a month each. It's not down to the taxpayer to foot the bill for someone who's had 49 years to provide for their retirement and has failed to take action. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I assume there are some T&C's attached to the allowance ?
It's not just a given ?
There has to be timeframes etc involved
Otherwise it seems that a single parent could just stay at home 'parenting' and take £23,000 in benefits ?
And likewise a couple on benefits could sit at home 'job hunting' and enjoy £38,000 a year.
Where do I sign up ?"
As it stands now you can't sit at home 'job hunting' for more than 6 monhs before they start hauling you in for questioning, so I can't see that changing in the near future. I'm all for helping people who are willing to help themselves but I'm not willing to help people who do nothing but help themselves. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ugby 123Couple
over a year ago
Forum Mod O o O oo |
"They may not have a morgage and they pay rent.
Then they'll get £1,000 a month each. It's not down to the taxpayer to foot the bill for someone who's had 49 years to provide for their retirement and has failed to take action."
Sorry Wishy, but sometimes you sound like you don't live in the real world. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Hmmm why would a pensioner and single persons be so different , they would have the same bills surely."
not always..... mortgage paid off is one consideration...
over 65's at the moment get a higher Single persons tax allowance... plus they don't pay National Insurance....
if the MIS is 18K for a single person... then they are going to have to increase the Minimum wage by a shed load.....
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Don't understand why a couple (no mention of kids) needs 2k more than 2 single people  "
It's worked out at £18k per person as a basic, but a couple with 2 kids (that's the example used) have added expenses (childcare being the major expense) that a single person does not. Don't forget that there is another category of lone parent, so when the MIS refers to a 'single' person it means one without children. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
One thing that gets my back up is you pay Tax and NHI as single people yet any benefit is paid as a couple. This was fine in the days when couples got tax relief for being a couple but is just another stealth tax. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"if the MIS is 18K for a single person... then they are going to have to increase the Minimum wage by a shed load.....
"
...and rightly so as the Minimum Wage is shockingly low at the moment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Don't understand why a couple (no mention of kids) needs 2k more than 2 single people
It's worked out at £18k per person as a basic, but a couple with 2 kids (that's the example used) have added expenses (childcare being the major expense) that a single person does not. Don't forget that there is another category of lone parent, so when the MIS refers to a 'single' person it means one without children."
Ah ok.. What about a married cpl with no kids?? Or a married couple with 6 kids? Will these be different?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Don't understand why a couple (no mention of kids) needs 2k more than 2 single people
It's worked out at £18k per person as a basic, but a couple with 2 kids (that's the example used) have added expenses (childcare being the major expense) that a single person does not. Don't forget that there is another category of lone parent, so when the MIS refers to a 'single' person it means one without children.
Ah ok.. What about a married cpl with no kids?? Or a married couple with 6 kids? Will these be different? "
If one couple chooses not to breed then they get nice holidays every year. If another couple decide to breed a football team then they need to hope one of them plays for a Premier League team in the future.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I assume there are some T&C's attached to the allowance ?
It's not just a given ?
There has to be timeframes etc involved
Otherwise it seems that a single parent could just stay at home 'parenting' and take £23,000 in benefits ?
And likewise a couple on benefits could sit at home 'job hunting' and enjoy £38,000 a year.
Where do I sign up ?
As it stands now you can't sit at home 'job hunting' for more than 6 monhs before they start hauling you in for questioning, so I can't see that changing in the near future. I'm all for helping people who are willing to help themselves but I'm not willing to help people who do nothing but help themselves."
but some people are very good at answering questions or rigging circumstances in their favour !
it does sound overall like a decent plan and will certainly lower the amount of benefits on offer and make it easier to manage and administer for both claimants and the government.
not sure on the figures, but they seem realistic enough on the surface
i know 1 person straight away (a single low earner) who will benefit and 1 (a single mum on £25k pa) who will definately lose out
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
then on top of that for example... free bus pass (for example the over 65 pass for all services in tyne and wear costs 8 pound... mine would have cost 75 pounds a month for the same thing).... reduced council tax....
I can see why there is a difference.... in which case if the MIS is going to be 12K... it might give you a nod to where any "universal" state pension may be aimed towards in the reforms.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Don't understand why a couple (no mention of kids) needs 2k more than 2 single people
It's worked out at £18k per person as a basic, but a couple with 2 kids (that's the example used) have added expenses (childcare being the major expense) that a single person does not. Don't forget that there is another category of lone parent, so when the MIS refers to a 'single' person it means one without children.
Ah ok.. What about a married cpl with no kids?? Or a married couple with 6 kids? Will these be different?
If one couple chooses not to breed then they get nice holidays every year. If another couple decide to breed a football team then they need to hope one of them plays for a Premier League team in the future. "
lol.... I'm imagining a few folk thinking "oh.. I better get married so we can get 2k more a year" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"so.. as a single parent on less than £6k a year, I'm quids in?
I never quite get head round all that sorta stuff "
You would be if my proposal was adopted. It's all hypothetical. I'm saying that the MIS should be used as the yardstick for any benefits floor/ceiling. You should be getting maintenance from your children's father and if you aren't I would advocate tracking him down and taking it from him by force if neccessary! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I don't quite see why a couple (without children) need to earn more than twice what a a single person earns.......
At £18k I was fairly happy with my salary, I could afford to eat healthily, I could afford to travel to work and even to go on holiday every now and again. I worked hard but felt adequately rewarded.
I would not agree to an employer paying me £12k PA and the Gov't topping me up £6k PA. If £18k is the minimum that the Gov't expect someone to earn then they should set the minimum wage to £9.00 ph (the hourly rate to achieve this). The use of Tax Credits and other in work benefits (amongst other factors) artificialy supresses wage rates. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
I haven't read the full updated JRF report yet but it has always contained standards of living that some question as being overly generous - car ownership being one of these. I do, generally, support their definitions as this is about living in a fair and more equal society.
As has been said, to reach these figures would mean increasing the minimum wage considerably. The London Living Wage is not applied well across London and it would still fall short of these figures.
The £37k figure is for a family of four.
The proposed benefit cap will be below this.
Those interested may also want to read the London Poverty Profile... the data is useful for looking at other cities too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
" If £18k is the minimum that the Gov't expect someone to earn then they should set the minimum wage to £9.00 ph (the hourly rate to achieve this). "
No, it's not the minumum they expect someone to earn, it's the minimum they need to afford a socially acceptable standard of living. The two are not quite the same. The minimum wage should be set at a level higher than the MIS or it makes the MIS redundant. It pisses me off the employers reap the rewards of their employees labour and pay them a pittance for it. A business should not be in business if it can't afford to mee the costs of being in business, which includes decent pay levels. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" If £18k is the minimum that the Gov't expect someone to earn then they should set the minimum wage to £9.00 ph (the hourly rate to achieve this).
No, it's not the minumum they expect someone to earn, it's the minimum they need to afford a socially acceptable standard of living. The two are not quite the same. The minimum wage should be set at a level higher than the MIS or it makes the MIS redundant. It pisses me off the employers reap the rewards of their employees labour and pay them a pittance for it. A business should not be in business if it can't afford to mee the costs of being in business, which includes decent pay levels."
I accept your interpretation of my argument (I even accept your reworking of it) I don't work (normaly) in a minimum wage type job so I wouldn't have a problem with it.
How about remove all of the draconian Trade Union laws and let workers fight for better wages? Funny isn't it that TU activity was highest in the 70's and so were relative wage levels for the worse off and inequality between top and botom earners were also at their lowest levels........... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
" If £18k is the minimum that the Gov't expect someone to earn then they should set the minimum wage to £9.00 ph (the hourly rate to achieve this).
No, it's not the minumum they expect someone to earn, it's the minimum they need to afford a socially acceptable standard of living. The two are not quite the same. The minimum wage should be set at a level higher than the MIS or it makes the MIS redundant. It pisses me off the employers reap the rewards of their employees labour and pay them a pittance for it. A business should not be in business if it can't afford to mee the costs of being in business, which includes decent pay levels. I accept your interpretation of my argument (I even accept your reworking of it) I don't work (normaly) in a minimum wage type job so I wouldn't have a problem with it.
How about remove all of the draconian Trade Union laws and let workers fight for better wages? Funny isn't it that TU activity was highest in the 70's and so were relative wage levels for the worse off and inequality between top and botom earners were also at their lowest levels..........."
I'd welcome any move to clip the wings of trade unions. I don't think getting ridding of unions would be a good thing as there are many unscrupulous employers who would take the piss more than they are now, but I'd certainly like to see militant union barons using their members to score political points taken down a peg or ten. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" If £18k is the minimum that the Gov't expect someone to earn then they should set the minimum wage to £9.00 ph (the hourly rate to achieve this).
No, it's not the minumum they expect someone to earn, it's the minimum they need to afford a socially acceptable standard of living. The two are not quite the same. The minimum wage should be set at a level higher than the MIS or it makes the MIS redundant. It pisses me off the employers reap the rewards of their employees labour and pay them a pittance for it. A business should not be in business if it can't afford to mee the costs of being in business, which includes decent pay levels. I accept your interpretation of my argument (I even accept your reworking of it) I don't work (normaly) in a minimum wage type job so I wouldn't have a problem with it.
How about remove all of the draconian Trade Union laws and let workers fight for better wages? Funny isn't it that TU activity was highest in the 70's and so were relative wage levels for the worse off and inequality between top and botom earners were also at their lowest levels...........
I'd welcome any move to clip the wings of trade unions. I don't think getting ridding of unions would be a good thing as there are many unscrupulous employers who would take the piss more than they are now, but I'd certainly like to see militant union barons using their members to score political points taken down a peg or ten."
Bollox
As opposed to greedy employers using their ability to relocate their head quaters to another county in order to score political points?
A few plain and simple facts.....
Unionised work places offer far better pay and conditions than non unionised workplaces.
Free right to strike leads to higher wages and better pay and conditions that a restricted one.
UK Trade Union laws are the most restrictive in Europe |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ugby 123Couple
over a year ago
Forum Mod O o O oo |
"then on top of that for example... free bus pass (for example the over 65 pass for all services in tyne and wear costs 8 pound... mine would have cost 75 pounds a month for the same thing).... reduced council tax....
I can see why there is a difference.... in which case if the MIS is going to be 12K... it might give you a nod to where any "universal" state pension may be aimed towards in the reforms...."
It seems a huge difference even with the benefits etc you describe... plus don't forget single people get a council tax discount too and pensioners could still be paying rent if they hadn't bought a house when they were working.
TBH I have not read the report so will go do now, I was just wondering why the big gap between the two. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"then on top of that for example... free bus pass (for example the over 65 pass for all services in tyne and wear costs 8 pound... mine would have cost 75 pounds a month for the same thing).... reduced council tax....
I can see why there is a difference.... in which case if the MIS is going to be 12K... it might give you a nod to where any "universal" state pension may be aimed towards in the reforms....
It seems a huge difference even with the benefits etc you describe... plus don't forget single people get a council tax discount too and pensioners could still be paying rent if they hadn't bought a house when they were working.
TBH I have not read the report so will go do now, I was just wondering why the big gap between the two."
This is an almost annual report that JRF produces and is based on public crowd opinion of what is a good standard of living. They then use this information and cost it up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
U cant sit at home for the first six months either "job hunting" - u have to go every two weeks and get questioned and if u dont prove u have been "job hunting" only your stamp will be paid ..... plus
there are some people who cannot get job seekers for the first six months either - they can only get their stamp paid if they are lucky - and this can be through no fault of their own
and they have to prove they are attending interviews, hunting for work and doing everything they can - without an income of their own |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"U cant sit at home for the first six months either "job hunting" - u have to go every two weeks and get questioned and if u dont prove u have been "job hunting" only your stamp will be paid ..... plus
there are some people who cannot get job seekers for the first six months either - they can only get their stamp paid if they are lucky - and this can be through no fault of their own
and they have to prove they are attending interviews, hunting for work and doing everything they can - without an income of their own "
Which is why I have never signed on or claimed anything ever. I have paid higher rate taxes etc for many years, and tax and NI for over 30 yars, but I am not entitled to anything for 6 months. Thankfully, I have just about enough paid work to keep the roof over my head. Just. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"U cant sit at home for the first six months either "job hunting" - u have to go every two weeks and get questioned and if u dont prove u have been "job hunting" only your stamp will be paid ..... plus
there are some people who cannot get job seekers for the first six months either - they can only get their stamp paid if they are lucky - and this can be through no fault of their own
and they have to prove they are attending interviews, hunting for work and doing everything they can - without an income of their own
Which is why I have never signed on or claimed anything ever. I have paid higher rate taxes etc for many years, and tax and NI for over 30 yars, but I am not entitled to anything for 6 months. Thankfully, I have just about enough paid work to keep the roof over my head. Just."
me too, am waiting for my pension forecast and if I have the 30 years in that I believe I have then I am so outer there ............ not being humiliated or demoralised for no one - not when I could do their jobs better than them ..........  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
